>Why does the 747 have a upper deck in the first place? Was it
>for futre expansion?
This has come up in this newsgroup a number of times -- it's there so
the 747 could be converted to freighters and have an unimpeded main
deck. More details are in the newsgroup archives, which can be found
at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html.
>Why does Boeing not want to extend the upperdeck the full length of
>the aircraft, is it not economical, aerodynamic, weight penalty?
Certainly weight is a factor, and a full-length upper deck would also
mean a redesign of at least the verticle tail if not the empenage in
its entirety. A double-deck design also poses problems for entry and
egress, both at gates and in emergencies.
--
Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com
|Work kls@netapp.com
|WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills